ML19207B816

Transcript of NRC 790705 Public Meeting in Washington,Dc to Discuss Application of Price-Anderson Act to TMI-2.Pp 1-42

ML19207B816
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	07/05/1979
From:	Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
Shared Package
ML19207B817	List: ML19207B816 ML19207B821
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7909050317
Download: ML19207B816 (43)

Text

.

I

/

NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:

Public Meeting Discussion Concerning Application of Price-Anderston To Three Mile Island Place - Washington, D. - C.

D.na - Thursday, July 5, 1979 Pages 1-42

...= r :n. :

(:::: ac::::

1 ACE. FEDERAI, REPORTERS, INC.

l C.T.c.al Reporters Jc,, a s.xr.,

oysa r

l Lu Nor**1 Cecitel Street I

Wesmngten. D.C. 20C01 NATICNWICE COVERAGE. D AILY T u090503/2)

t

- SC,.A_u_rR sA A.

."._4s _i s a*1 ".

1. _ # ' 4 = ' _ _ _= n s w- _ d o, '<. c #_

a

...e a_ "_ _'.g o #_

'..".a.

". ".. _4,. a_ d S *- = * =- =

yuc _: e a _

=,ec,,, = 'o v, C -,...._4 o _4 n.. e.1 A

. Thursdav., $ Ju.l".

-."e

.979 d

w o

e r__

Cc=missiens 's of fices at 1717 E Street, N. W.,

Washincton, D. C.

The meecine. was ccen to cublic attendance and observation.

This transcrie:

has not heen reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain 2

4..,c,,,

c_es.

• ".e

• .. a..s c

_4c. 's.i s

.4..* a..d e c' so ' e' v.

c, e..e _ a '_ _in _#,. a ~_ '

r. a '

4*

_d s..

• u a-'

~#

- " e #.-..= _'

.su.-7cses.

.As e vd#ad k., v, ' O C r o.. 4.'O',

f c

_4..#c.a_'

_=_c d o#-

e - - o o a.. c'

".".e..=*.a_a

1. 4sc"seeA.

T_x y. a. s _i -.s i-i

= -.

o# +

_4.". 4 c n i.. *..h i s ' a..s c _ _4 _ ~. d-

..c *

..e r a_ s a a _ d.' v _- =_ _# _' e c.

.# 4..a.'

_y d e.a.. d..a *. d -..s e _ '. e ' _d e _" o.

N. e-c, ' e a c'.i..c, o. o *m'.a_ -_,aye.

...av, " e

_# _i _' =_ d w 4 "'.

..h e C -.... " m o _' -.. _ ". ". _=.. ; _.- ^ c a a_ d _4-n3

=s

".e

~=su _' ". o #. c add _-a_ssad a

a.e..e..

a.-,-..e... -^r a_i..ed ".. a_ _ e d.., a.x ee. = s

.e

-- _.. y n hc. i..e.

Ce-.. _'am'o..av, (O

a s..).oA

CR 5762 JW3each 2

i all i

i i

l' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I

2l NUCLEAR REC JLATORY CCMMISSION a

4 Public Meeting i

5i DISCUSSION CONCERNING APPLICATION OF PRICE-ANDERSCN l

6 TO THREE MILE ISLAND l

I 7

i 8

i 9

Recm 1130 1717 H Street, M.

W.

10 Washington, D.

C.

Il Thursday, 5 July 1979 l

12 The Cc= mission met, pursuant t'o notice, at 2:10 i

13 p.m.

l 14 SEFORE:

i 15 DR. JOSEPH M.

HENDRIE, Chairman I

16 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 17 ;

RICHARD T.

EENNEDY, Cctmissioner 18 JCHN F.

AHEARNI, Cc=missioner 19 ALSO PRESENT:

20 Messrs. Chilk, Sickwin, Fitzgerald, Shields, 21 Gessick, Saltzman, and Shapar.

22 Jl d

I CS 89C er Si 9 tDor*Trl, :PC.

• C (s 4 ') } h JAdJA -

CR 5762 Jdseach 3

l all i

i i

1,

_P. _R _O _C _E _E D_ _I _N.G_ _S 2l (2:15 p.m.)

i i

I 3

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Okay, if we may come to order.

l 4

The Commission meets this afterncon to discuss i

5, the application of the Price-Anderson Act to the Three Mile I

[

6; Island accident.

l i

7' It's a temetation to attemot to recap my i

i 3

nderstanding of this situation by outlining for you the I

9 various aspects of the matter.

I think, in the interests 10 of time and efficiency and probably having "I better not 11 do that." I will note that the speaker en the subject, who i

12 is listed as the Office of the General Counsel, however the l

l counsel points out to me -- not wishing to hog all the glory 13 ll I

14 on this subject --

15,

(Laughter.)

i 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

-- that the memorandum before i

17 the Cc= mission is in fact a joint preparation of his office 18 and Mr. Shapar's office.

I assume that he would want 19 '

both kinds of things that might ficw from censideration of 20 their paper to be shared jointly between them.

I believe 21 that 's the underlying thing.

22 Why dcn't I ask, then, the heads of our twc 22 legal offices ec, in whatever manner they may desire, to 24 i seli: un a lav.ing out for us what we've gc: here this 4

.ce-Fvceral 2eocr*sti. I nc. '

25 afterncen and where they think we cugh

gc.

1 i

l o4 2c oxo 3a-

4 l

jwb l t

i i

1; MR. SHAPAR:

I think that we've agreed that I'll 2i start out.

I also want to coint out that Jerry Salt: man's i

i.

3 office participated in the preparation of this paper.

i 4;

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes, I should have noted that.

i 5'

As a matter of f act, we've got three law offices.

f I,

i 6'

MR. SALTZMAN:

We're not lawyers.

We ' re the l

7, illegal part of it.

1 I

I SI

( Laughte r. )

l l

9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

"A-legal"?

1 10 MR. SALTZMAN:

Yes.

Il t CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

All right, Scward, go ahead.

1 4

12 MR. SHAPAR:

I wcn't spend too much detail in 13 describing the Price-Anderson system, although we can get t

I 14 into as much detail as you would like.

j 15 '

I would like to make a few preliminary remarks 16 to put the matter in perspective, and then ask Sill Shields 17 f to describe the Federal Register notice, which is appended 18 to the paper.

19 This is the first time the Commission has had 20 to censider the making of a determinatica en an extracrdinary 21 nuclear occurrence.

And as I indicated, the paper does l

22 propose a Federal Register actice to really start t:.e 23 process of getting public input to aid the Ccmmissicn in 24 reaching a determinaticn one way or the other.

a s.a.c... a. m m n,:ce. '

c 25 Sy way o f gener al 'cackground, the extraordinary L. 4,. - s 3 e.d ilt' c

i

jwb !

5 I

i l

li nuclear occurrence provisions were added by amendments to t

2l' the Price-Anderson Act in 1966.

It was essentially a i

l 3

ccmprcmise.

At that time, some of us may recall, there was l

l i

4l legislation bouncing acout that would have created, by I

I 5

statute, strict liability on the Price-Anderson regime.

6' That approach was not adopted.

And what was l

7-adopted is essentially a compromise.

The main argument i

I 3

-3ainst Congressional i-position by statute of strict 9

liability was that it woult. put the Federal Government into 10 the federal tort law of the states.

This obviously wruld have aroused a lot of opposition which was showing its head II i

l 12 '

at.. the time.

And this contractual system of waivers, which l

13 is now part of the Price-Anderson scheme since 19 66, was I

Id essentially a political legislative compromise.

15 One.coint of clarification.

And that is, ceocle 1

16 '

say that -- or some people say that we have a system of 17 strict liability by contractual waivers, and that's essen-18 tially correct.

But one should not assume that the strict l9 liability which is created by these contractual waivers, 20 shculd the Conmission determine that an extraordinary 21 nuclear occurrence has cccurred, is the same system of 22 strict liability that would obtain in a state which wculd 23 impcse strict liability by vi tue of the tort law in tha

'a state.

There could be diffe rences.

n 1 " 'A (,

1*'

JAd-a s 4cersi %oorurs, Inc.

c

~c 2*/ example:

It's prett*f Cle?* from the centraCOual

~

6

)

jwb l I

1:

waivers creating strict liability under the Price-Anderson 1

2 cegime that acts f God essentially, and legal doctrines of 3,

assumption of risk, and unforeseen intervening act of a i

l 4

third person, that those are not available defenses by i

1 l

virtue of the contractual waivers of defenses.

They "might" c

i t

I 6i be available defenses under a strict liability regime imposed i

1 7;

by the tort law of the state.

l So the point I'm trying to make is :

That strict d

t 9'

liability bv contractaal waivers is not necessarily the same 1

10 as strict liability that might or might not be imposed by i.

11 a state under its own tort law.

" extra-12 Now what's the significance of an ENO i

l 13 ordinary nuclear occurrence"?

Two main items of significance. l i

i 14 If an extraordinary nuclear occurrence is l

r 15 determined by the Commission to have occurred, then the i

1 16 contractual waivers will ccme into play.

They don't come 17 '

into play unless the Cc= mission determines that an ENO has t

i 18 occurred.

19,

And the other major significant item is that the 20 Federal District Court in Pennsylvania where the site of

,1 the incident occurred will have original durisdiction over s

a 22 the matter.

If a case is brought scmewhere else, it can s3 he removed ueon metica Oc that court.

The congressional I

24 I intent being that it would be scre attuned to the needs I

w c..., %~,.

m. ;

25 i of justice and fairness to have one ccurt being able tc 313318 i

a

jwb 7

1 I

i 1 li handle all claims arisine out of the same ENO.

,i 2

CCMMISJIONER KENNEDY:

Ecward, just a point i

3 there.

Are you saying they "would be" moved because motion i

4l would necessarily follow?

i 5

MR. SHAPAR:

No.

l l

I 6

CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Or is it that they "could i

7

, e...,

.t a.

f a

MR. SHAPAR:

Scmeone could make a =ction and i

1 9

that would get it consolidated.

Without the =cticn, it 10 wouldn' be.

Il CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Therefore, another court 12 ca.uld consider it.

i I

13 '

MR. SHAPAR:

"Couldr" ves.

i 1

14 CCMMISSIGNER KENNEDY:

Okay.

l i

15 !

MR. SHAPAR:

But let's say as a practical matter i

16 '

I would censider it unlikely.

17 CCMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

Rig!..

18 !

MR. SHAPAR:

Cne other point, again by way of I

19 general background, the statute, the 1966 amendments, say 20 that your determina:icn that an ENO has er has not cccurred 21 is not judicially reviewable.

The statute says that.

22 I don't think new wculd be the time to get in:c l

22 '

-he place of whether er not these wcrds necassarily mean 24 1, exactly what they say ".nder all circ = stances, sc=e of which ACS IM* tral 9 900r*$r5, IFC.

25 can be foreseen and sc=e which cannce.

s o ~s s o o) Ad.r.,Lwl s

i

jwb 8

l i

I i

I 1l With respect to the basic question of whether or i

2.

not some croceedine ought to be started such as would be i

)

3 initiated by the notice, draft notice, which is appended to 4,

the paper which Bill Shields will cet into, I think clearly 5

that the dominant poliev considerations urge in favor of i

4 6:

some notice goi g out within this general time frame.

I i

7 It seems uncertain at this time when and whether l

3 a r etition will be filed asking you to declare an ENO.

The l

9 attorneys involved in the litigation really need to know i

l 10 in order to be able to plan their litigation strategy.

The I

11 jurisdiction of the Harrisburg court won't be clear until I

12 the ENO matter is disposed of.

And of course there's strong I

13 '

Congressional and public interest in whether or not an ENO 14 has occurred.

1 15,

So therefore I think that it's fair to sav. that i

i 16 all the dominant policy considerations argue strongl-in 17 favor of at least kicking off the process to the extent of 18 getting public input, either at this time, or fairly close 19 to it.

20 I might also nention that Ccmmissicner Hendrie 21 will be testifying on Monday, and I'm sure that this is cne 22 of the questicas that will ccme up:

What has the Cc= mission 23 I been doing with regard to IM0?

I 2d And I think w

'"*se b2Chgrcund remarks, it 4

Acs 3scers: Aeoomn. inc '

25 might be pr fitable at this time to ask 3ill Shields to get c,4,,

3.,n JLQ-Joh) i

jwb l 9

l i

i i

1!

into the Federal Register notice.

l l

r 2j MR. SHIELDS:

Okay, our paper -- starting at about i

3 page 32 -- we review some of the things that Howard touched 4,

on, some of the reasons why we are suggesting this course of 5

action at this time.

l 6-We have, as Howard mentioned, heard over the past l

l 7;

three to fcur weeks informally that a petition was going to i

I 8

be filed.

However, one has not materialized.

There are t

9 some advantages to having a petition, in the sense that it i

10 focuses vour inquirv.;. It gives v.ou a cccument to becin vcur 11 work with; it contains sc=e factual information, presumably ;

l 12 and it would give you an opportunity to fccus your inquiry.

13 ;

However, a petition has not mate"4=14-ad Tn view j

14 '

of the time involved, it seems profitable at t."is time to i

I 15 begin the process on our own.

{

16 The cc= mission's regulations do provide that the a

f I

17 Cc= mission can begin the process of determining whether or f

la,

not an extraordinary nuclear cccurrence has cccurred on its I

19 ;

cvn motion, absent a petiticn; and that's the course of 20 action that we're suggesting today.

21 Scme of the other reasons that Ecward also touched 22 i on, involving the proceedings in District Courr in Harris-23 burg, the importance 20 kncwing whether cr ner this is an 24 extracrdinary occurrence, and also we have received an k&=IMerti A OCCr*grt, IN:,

25 informal request frca the ccurt at a recen conference for c <., v,.,

t ah,

.ErQ'

jwb 10 I

i i

l l

I I

the Cummission to make that determination.

1 I

I 2

CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Would you expand a little i

3 bit about that point?

i 4,

MR. SHIELDS:

About the court?

l S'

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Yes, what you've mentioned l

I 6;

in your paper; that the court had informally requested it.

i l

7; MR. SHIELDS:

Fitz, do you want to comment on I

8 that' i

9 MR. FITZGERALD:

Ccmmissioner, Steve Eilpe; n 10 and I and Paul Fagley (phonetic) frcm the Department of 11 Justice attended a recent pretrial conference in Harrisburg, l

12 '

not as participants but as -- we were invited up as friends I

i 13 I of the court.

I.

I i

14 At that proceeding, the magistrate, Harvis --

i 15 '

CCMMISSIONER KENNIDY:

What was the nature cf I

t 16 the pretrial -- what was the case?

17 MR. FIT 3 GERALD:

The case was all the cases that 18 had -- it was a pretrial conference involving approximately 19 25 plaintiffs' attorneys, and 4 or 5 defendants' attorneys, 20,

to discuss the filing of a consolidated ccmplaint that, a t

21 couple of days after the pretrial conference, did in fact 22 ge: filed; and to work cut matters of common interest --

23 discovery, for example.

That was one of 2.2 reasons we were 24 up there is that the questien was:

What type cf materials a.ecr,. t r c. l s s.s.cers e

'S are publicly available to the parties preparing their suits?

Oe vm O s d" w r M s

f jwb 11 I

I I

l!

We gave them indexes of various documents that had been i

I I

2!

placed in the PDR.

3 And with regard to the magistrate's intcrest in i

4 the ENO, he asked specifically when the Ccemission might be t

1, 5l making that determination.

You know, what type of schedule I

e 6

would be a possibility.

l 2

7; The Justice Department Attorney represented, I

8 not having consulted with us, sometime in the next five I

f i

4 months.

And the reasons that appeared to be of interest i

f 10 '

and discussed at that conference would be primarily one of 11 j urisdiction.

l 1

12 The parties -- both plaintiffe' counsel and 13 !

defendanes' counsel -- advised the court that they thought t

i i

14 the court had jurisdiction, regardless of whether an INO i

15 was declared by the Commission.

However, if the Commission 16 !

did declare an ENO, that would certainly settle the matter 17:

and they were interested in obtaining such a determination.

la MR. SHIELDS:

I should point cut maybe that the 19,

importance of this to the lawsuit is somewhat ambiguous.

20 We do make a case, in the context of this memorandum, that i

21 the actual declaraticr of an ENO in this case from a 22 substantive standpoint may not in the end make very much 23,

difference in terms o f the law that's applied.

But Ecward 1

i 44 I

did point out, there could be scme differences.

sc. ;.c.,.. a.cor.m. me.

25 Cn the other hand, it's important that they have

r. 2.: ~

S).O Jn, r,s

jwb 12 I

l 4

4 I

l i,

a determination ".ves" or "no," in order that thev. know what I

2l kind of assumptions they are proceeding On, and can go j

3 forward either knowing that it's an ENO and applying that r

I 4,

kind of law, or knowing that it is not and going forward I

I i,

,c.

with whatever the state law har. : ens to ac. olv.

i 6

So that's why it's important for the lawsuits, I

i 7;

as such.

i l

~

For these reasons, we're suggescing that the j

3 9

Commission at this time go ahead, on its own motion, and 10 begin the process.

And tne means that we're suggesting are 11 suggested by our regulations, although are not recuired for 12 it, in the case where a petition is filed the regulations 13 suggest that a Fede al Register notice might be issued if i

l 14 l the Ccemission felt it did not have enough information en i

i 15 hand.

But it doesn't speak to what procedures might be l

1 16,

applied if the Commission proceeds on its own motion, as 17 :

we're prepcsing today, i

)

13

'de felt that the best way to begin wculd be to 19,

issue a Federal Register notice indicating that the Commission 20 is beginning this process of determining whether or not 21 Three Mile Island is an extracrdinary nuclear cccurrence.

22 And we have suggested a Federal Register notice l

d appended to our paper, which is fairly simple in its outline.

23 24 It simelv r.enticns the -- nctes the fact that we have nce Ms-FMerat 9eocr*ers, Irac. I 25 yet received a petiticn recuesting the ENC.

It curlines O l '? 'Y ' A u,e.O s.V 4 I

jwb 7-J l

1 several reasons which were mentioned already whv. the i

t i

2 Ccemission feels it's important to proceed at this time.

3 The second portion of the Federal Register notice, 4

which is cage 2 of the notice, requests interested -- it f

9 5

invites interested persons to submit to the Commission j

i i

6 within 30 days any information that they feel is relevant l

7; to the determination.

In particular, fccusing on the 3

application of the criterion in the Ccemission's regulations; 9

and that this would be evaluated by a ccmmittee or a panel 10 of the principal staff as regulations require.

11 The notice closes bv. no tine. that the cc::c. osition 12 of this panel and the detailed procedures will be announced l

i 13 at a later date.

i 14 What we anticipate during this 30 iay period is i

15 that the Commission could proceed with the establishment of 16 the panel to begin to evaluate public input as it ccmes in; I

17 '

and at the end of the 30-day period when all of the public 13 cc= ment has been received and the panel has been established, 19 tnen at that point consultation with the staff in terms of 20 manpcwer and membership cn the panel and so on, and after 21 evaluating what public cc=ments we have, to set up a 22 detailed procedure and a schefule at which various things are 22 to occur, a repcrt, gathering of informaticn, further public i

2' input, and sc On, in order t not only schedule our cwn A 9J9c#f 31 9 90C r+3rt, ' FC.

C 25 work but to give the court scme idea of when we might reach n,,}, y. m J

.e sraa, O

14 l

jwb i

i i'

1; a determination.

i 2

I think that's accut it for the Federal Register l

i 3'

notice.

We're proposing -- I think it's reasonably important i

1 4l that we proceed as early as possibi, in the sense that, i

l 5!

number ene:

time is running and the lawsuits, I think, would i

6:

like to proceed; and also I think, as Howard mentioned, a l

7 strong Congressional interest en what, if anything, the I

i 8

Commission is doing en this subject.

9 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It seems to me like a desirable 10 step to take.

l 11 Let me ask scme things that have more to do with 12 detail of the procedures along the line, than suggest any I

13 difference on my part with the recommendation.

i.

l 14 Let's see.

Par: 140.32(b) recuires -- the paper i

13 says -- that the Ccemission designate members of the.rincipal 16 '

staff to begin b=nediately to assemble the relevant informa-17 -

tion and prepare a report en which the Commission can make 18,

its determination.

And then you ncte, " sufficient time should 19 '

be given to this group to assemble all available information 20 on the accident and to evaluate public cc=ments prior to 21 making its findings and recommendations to the Commission. "

22 Wculd you conme, c: hcw you see that activity 23 !

versus the line of fice investiga icns, studies, the

}

,4,

Cc= mission's principal investigation into the accident, and

' i Acs *w:eral Remmrs. Inc.

25 its secpe and reperting schedule and se on?

That is, it c 4, y ?,~

J J.d 4 6'O

jwb !

15 i

I 1l seems to me that the schedule, at least for the Commission's 2

principal investigation, runs on at some length.

And while l

3 one might, in the best of all possible worlds, like to have I

I 4,

all the investigatict reports in hand, it's not clear to me i

i 1

i 1

5l that the extraordinary nuclear occurrence determination to I

l 6

be made here need wait all of that time.

But I wonder how i

l I

7; you see this group of the principal staff assembling and i

3 preparing a report?

How that fits with

? other assorted i

9 TMI investigations, studies, and so on.

l 10 MR. BICKWIT:

My guess is that it would not have i

11,

to await the outc;=e of those investigations.

You would i

12-have your s~taf f crew lock at what was ccming in by way of i

i l

13 i, public comment and staff analyses, secarate and ac. art from i

f I

14 l the investigations.

If they came to the cenclusion that i

i 15,

matter being developed in the investigation was essential l

16 for their reccmmendations, they might have to wait for them 17' and they might have to seek them.

la COMMISSICNER AHEAPalE:

Co the regulations i

19 '

specifically -- it seems to say that you either make the 20 finding in 90 days, or else it's not.

21 MR. 3ICKWIT:

And extend the period of time.

22l MR. SHAPAR:

I think it's clear that the 22 determination you need to make on an ENC is much narrower Ac Ja:mi n.co, 3,s inc. I

~

Two elements are 24 than the Ove-

i"vestication in the INC.

25 pretty clear ander the criterien:

whether Or nct there's o3n vn, s.).h. O ~. k C

16 l

jwb I

1 been a substantial off-site release; and whether or not l

i 2!

there have been substantial damages of f-site.

And I would i

i 3'

expect that acst of the information you need to make those i

4 determinations are available to you now.

Whereas, the main i

5l investigation, of course, is lessons learned --

l i

l 6l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

That comes off the paper?

l l

7; (Laughter.)

8 MR. SEAPAR:

Well, cne could give you the benefit l

9, of our current thinking on the matter in tentative form.

l 10 So I think it's a much narrower focus, and I 11 think Len is just right when he says it can be separated.

12 MR. BICKWIT:

But if it's necessarv. to extend I

13,

the tine, you know, in fact the 90-day perioc' doesn 't i

14 '

apply to this particular way of proceeding.

The 90-day t

15,

period applies where you are respending to a petition.

i I

16 '

CIMMISSICNER AHEAFliE:

But it says if the 4

17 '

Cc==ission publishes a notice in the Federal Register, the la 90 days applies.

19 MR. BICKNIT:

That the notice in the Federal 20 Register is following en from the petition.

I would read 1

21 it as -- all of that, as fcilcwing along from the initiation 22 cf a petiticn.

23 MR. SEAPAR:

But there's no reason why we I

21 shculdn' O,2 3 1 8 ace sm:erc =.cor m. nc.

25 MR. SICKWIT:

There's no reason why you shc_ldn':.

l

jwb 17 l'

MR. SHAPAR:

-- the 90 days is a rule-of-thumb.

I 2

MR. BICKWIT:

It's a small point.

3 COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

Would you --

4 MR. BICKWIT:

We advise using the 90 days, but I

5 the conclusion of our paper was that our regulations would l

l 6

not require us to do so.

I i

7 CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

I see.

i 8

Then vou would also argue that the reculations 9

didn't really require us to go cut icr notice in 7 days 10 after the event?

S' APAR:

I think you've already concluded 11 MR.

d 12 that, based on the previous paper that I sent up right I

13 during the accident.

14 COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

Yes.

i 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRII:

April 3rd, I think.

16 MR. SICXWIT:

We concluded that it required to 17 go cut for notice 7 days after the initiation of the 18 petition.

19 MR. SHAPAR:

One of the options I presented was 20 no do it within 7 days.

?cu elected not to go that route.

i 21 MR. 3ICKWIT:

Which was an understandable c.4 m mitJ

v..d i c election.

4.

t 4

23 CHAIRMAN HENDRII:

Okay, it dces seem Oc me, 24 even if they are separable matters, and indeed it dces seem i

sa,.e :.,.i a.cc,

,s. m e. -

a If to me that the sCcpe of st3ff finding and repcrt en an INC I

l

1 jwb l 18 i

l l

I matter is indeed narrower than particularly the principal e

i 2

investication of the Cc= mission, that nevertheless with i

3 regard to the mat.ers that the ENO group would have to deal 4

with, I guess if I were on that group I would want to have I

5l scme confidence that the conclusions I was joining in coming t

,t 6

to -- about, say, level o-release and so en -- that those 7,

conclusions were really very unlikely to be substantially i

3 mcdified by subsequent efforts in other investigations and i

9 studies, at least within the agency.

10 So there is a connection, clearly.

l Il Cther questions?

12 COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

Yes, a coucle.

13 l Co I understand correctly that, to determine that

{

t l

14 an event is an ENO is not in any way related to whether or l

15 not it's a nuclear incident?

That is, determining that a i

I 16 nuclear incident has occurred is not significant.

Is that l

1 correct?

10 MR. 3:CKWIT:

That's true.

You will have tc have I9 a nuclear incident --

20 l CCMMISSIONER AREARNE:

Yes.

I 2I.

MR. 3:CKWIT:

-- in crder to have an ENO.

But the other, the converse --

23 CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

Sut finding that there is s

I a nuclear incident is not s ieni ficant.

a.;w:ere neoor m.rne.i c

-c The finding of an ENO, then, requires concluding o9nno a) Ad v O(

jwb l 19 l

l I

that both criteria are met.

Is that correct?

l MR. SEAPAR:

Both.

Correct.

3' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Both criterion.

In the meeting of the criteria, is " psychological 5i damage" allcwed?

'l I

0 MR. SHIELDS:

That's a good question.

l 7;

(Laughte r. )

i 8I MR. BICKWIT:

That's certainly something that the I

i group would have to analyze, and the court itself is going 9

10 to deal with that in the course of some of the litigations 11 that are ongoing.

i 12 However, as we see this time schedule developing, i

l I3 '

the Commission is gcing to have to make that judgment before i

the court dces.

14 1

15 MR. SEAPAR:

Well, I think a couple of points 16 might be added.

Of course nuclear incident is described a

1,/

as an incident, in t.Q.e Act, as One which causes damages cue 9

15 to the radiatien, explosive, toxic, and other hazardcus i

19 prcperties of radicactive material by way of background.

And 20 of course one of the criteria, or ele.t.ents, I guess you

• 1 would icok an in Criterien II is protective measures to

'2 protect the public.

.T.a' RNT -

",""o-. w a -. ' '. _~ _ s_ a _ -..

4 C '.'.v v. _' m _ u^ ". 4 '.

T.

a.

.,1 a.cor.n. inc..iche discussicn of sickness damage whether psychc1cgical Ac.;,cerc i

damage was being included.

O ! > a z-a) A d s ? O..

j l

20 jwb.

i

'I I

r i

i ilj Second question:

In the Criterion I, it relates i

2 very much to specific levels.

If -- as it at least at the i

3 mcment looks possible -- that we aren' t going to know what 4*

those levels might have been within very fine precision, l

can that make it specifically l 5

does the findinc of Criterien I, l

6 "yes" or "no" on the basis of wide uncertainty?

Or must l

I I

7' you have an absolute number?

8 MR. SHIELOS:

I think we make the case in the 1

9 paper at a couple of points that certainly the intent at the l

l 10 time these criteria were drafted, and even during the time l

I 11 '

when these amendments were being censidered, the criteria 12 everyone understcod that particularly in -- well, in eitner 13 case, in either radiation or damage, that you really could l

I Id not come up with very hard and solid numbers.

i i

13 on the other hand, they realized they had to 16 ccme up with scme kind of guidelines.

And the implication

),',

is, in the legislative history and in cur cwn statements of 13 censiderations when these were published, that they are 19 intended to be what they call an " administrative index."

20 Of course that 's subj ect to interpre:ation, but 21 the way I would interpret it is that you're locking at a 72,

ball park figure.

And when you say 30 rems and ycu have 22 radiation figures which are only accurate tc within plus cr a4 ]

_ rems, wnsen is a pretty big error bar --

minus a Ace :w:ers aeoor en. inc. j 23l MR. SHAFAR:

The information thus far I think i

d m.o c.,.d u v r e l

jwb l 21 j

l i

i l!

indicates that creblem will perhaps be -- won ' t have to be i

l 2.

directly confronted.

i, t

3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

But you were about to say that the 30 rem includes -- takes account of the error bars, 4 i i

5 the best you can do.

1 i'

i 6

MR. SHIELDS:

In other words, you're looking at

,l l

7!

something -- I'm not going to say " order of magnitude,"

I 1

8 necessarily -- but if you were able to determine that it l

l 9

was somewhere within that order of magnitude, I think it would '

I 10 he reas snable to make the determination.

4 11 '

Cn the other hand, if you found that it was t

12 100 millirems within an order of magnitude, you clearly were l

l l

13 ;

not in the ball park.

l 14,

CCK4ISSICNER AHEARNE:

On the second criterien, i

i 15 which has to do -- at least part of it has to de with the 16 dollar damage, isn't that one 'of the issues that the court i

17 i ends up addressing:

What is the dollar damage?

i 18 MR. SHIELDS:

It's ver,/ difficult to work that 1

II in with the litigation.

20 MR. BICKWIT:

(Nodding in the affirmatire.)

21 MR. SHIELDS:

I'm nct even sure in the present case -- ve,ve even yad money paid out by tn.e insurance

-.a 23 ccmpanies already, which I guess you could coniider a cane-24 gery of damage.

I guess it largely depends en a matter of ACS Em20f ti 440CrMrs, ;."C.

25 estimate.

Certainly you have a great deal cf damage being i oo.;q

' A (_) m 8' LJ 4,

jwb 22 1

I i

li claimed in these lawsuits -- everything from personal injury I

2' to, I suppose, recovery of costs for replacement power.

3, I think that really what the regulation is 4!

contemplating la something in terms of some kind of 1

l 5,

immediate damages caused that are reasonably quantifiable i

6 within a short period of time.

1 i

7:

MR. SHAPAR:

I think the words say, " damages I

l 8'

which did result er might result or could have resulted" --

9 MR. SALTZMAN:

"Will probably."

10 MR. SHAPAR:

"Will probably."

So it's verv.

i Il broad.

It's a "best estimate," very c=vicusly.

The court's 12 task of course is to decide, among others, whether or not 13 '

damages were in fact -- did in fact occur.

14 '

MR. BICKWIT:

And I don't think the court's IS decisien would be influenced by the Cc= mission's.decisien.

16 The court wculd proceed de novo to lock at these considera-17 l tiens without giving any particular weight to the Cc= mis-13 sion's decision.

I9 -

CO.vS.ISSICNIR AREAPlIE:

New when I read your oC paper, the final conclusien I really had was, I wasn't e

el sure why you were ccing cut into this public proceeding, 22 unless there was scme infcrmation that you felt was there

..aI that we didn't already haver cr, that you wanted te felay.

t

4 i

MR. SHAPA2:

Neither.

a sa muni a.comn. iee. i

.c !

n,,

w

, w..,._,

c..v v.. 2 3 ~.. m.q a - _..~. p.c r.

_e__y (i k #

• d a.. e3 v v..t i

jwb :

23 l

1 l

1, COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Well, the papers seem to i

2 be --

1 i

i 3

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

You mean, delay a I

t 4-determination?

i l

5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Yes.

Tha paper seems to t

6 be making the case that it was not an ENO.

I i

7 MR. SHAPAR:

Well, I guess CGC can speak for i

1 3

itself, but my purpose in opposing this was, this is the 9

first of a kind, and that public input would be useful en a 10 case of first imp re s sion.

That was the purpose in getting 11 the proceeding --

12,

CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

Well, but the public I

i 13 input isn't cn "are the criteria accurate?"

I mean, the i

l 14 criteria are there.

i 15 MR. SHAPAR:

That's right.

16 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

In fact, you make a strong 17 case that v. cu shouldn' t try to ad'ust the criteria.

The J

18 criteria are already there.

19; So the cuestion then is:

Are the criterion met?

20 MR. SHAPAR:

That's right.

And we think public 21 input would be useful with regard to that.

'e 9..

C c.v' 1' c~ _c 1. ".. r_.', u"'

.~". c~a.-

' wcu_'d sea _a c

v

. a

.a a.

T s

23 pretty Odd no: to get it.

o 24 MR. SHAPAR:

Well, I chink you Oculd argue chat ace :.eu.i a.comn. rne.

25 we have as much information new as we can reascnabi; get, n t P e s~

r1.1, O s U s)

jwb,

24 I

I i,

I arguably so, and we could rear back and make it.

But I l

i i

2l think, for the reason I mentioned -- namely, it being a case i

3; of first impression -- that I would consider public input in 4{

this kind of a situation to be very valuablo.

I i

5l MR. FITZGERALD:

Further, another point is the i

I I

6 fact that you're making your decision that's judicially l

i 7

unreviewable, and therefore that would seem to argue also 8

for going out for public comment.

r 9

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

But my point, though, is --

i 10 and I think 7'm ending um really where Joe was starting --

II is that if the criteria aren't in question, and that 's not 12 ;

what you're asking, you're not asking the public "are these l

i 13 :

t.te appropriate criteria," you're really saving:

Ha're these t

I Id !

radiation levels been achieved anywhere?

What were the I

l IS ;

measurement.s?

What were the radiation levels and the loss?

i 16 Or, how much damage has been sustained?

l I7 MR. SHAPAR:

And the people who have sustained i

i 18 ;

such damages would be the person best capable to tell you so.

l9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I would guess that the i

20 hardest question, though, is -- number one, both criterion 21 have to be met.

-n MP, SHAPAR:

Yes.

3 CCMMISSICNER A*iEAR'II:

Number two :.3 going to be l

24 l so soft, anyway, particularly when you fold in the Ace sw:erv woor ers, inc.

-e psychological damages --

o n.. o...- -

J.La JO U

jwb I 25 l

l il i

1l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

When you say "boti." John, you i

i l

2j mean both halves of --

l 3

CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

Both criterion have to be i

4 met.

i I

5 MR. SALTZMAN:

Criteria I and Criteria II.

I l

l 6-CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Criterion --

1 I

7; CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

And Criteria I is very i

1 8

specific radiation levels.

l i

9 MR. BICKWIT:

Yes.

l l

10 CCMMISSICNER ASEARNE:

And I don't see how asking i

i 11 for public comments over a short period of time is going to I

12 provide you any increased confidence over what you new have i

i 13 on the basis of the preliminary radiation review.

And I l

l 14 would guess, to have really confidence in that, you're going I

i 15 to have to wait until the complete review of the var.'.cus i

l i

16 investigations of the radiation releases --

l 17 '

MR. SHAPAR:

I think there would be scme asaurance 13 that you hadn't missed something, you could give the 19 cpportunity to the world to ccme in and say that their 40 readings en their land of a certain intensity, and if they 21 don't come forward then I think you have more assurance than ycu have new tuat ene c::-s_ e re_ eases were what they were.

23 CCMMISSIONER GIEINSKY:

Incidentally, hcw will 2d this he distributed, Otner than just through the Federal sc..sw== =.oomn. ne.

• R Register?

4-

r. t n

0

• b o '-).n s c

" 'b 26 I

MR SHAPAR:

We could put out cress releases.

t 1

I 2l COMMIF3IONER GILINSKY:

So we would inform the t

i r

3' people in the neighborhood of TM1.

l i

4 MR. SHAPAR:

I don' t think that's discussed in the i

5, paper, but I would recctmend that you put out a public l

I' 6

announcement inthe local papers.

l 1

l 7

MR. SALTZMAN:

I think also we would want State I

3, programs, or semeene, to get in touch with the State or i

9 Pennsylvania, because there's cbviously another body that i

IO might have some measurements that's not within the Federal i

11 Government.

i 12' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

And cbviously all the people 13 who have filed suit will have an intense interest in the i

Id matter.

15 l MR. FITZGERALD:

Right.

i

,d CHAIRMAN HENDRII:

You have quite a service list i

i 17 '

already.

I3 CCMMISSICNER AHEAR'IE:

Te.d the notice would say U

we're trying to get this information because we want to cpen 20 the possibility c f consolidaticn in the federal court?

2I MR. SALT MAN:

No, I don't think the consolida-am tion questien is affecting it.

It's just that the magistrate l

3.!

there said thau he would like the questien cleared up by as, 24 1, pcssinia, before the court has to act en tne question 2:s _scers: Aecorwrs,tre.

ac what is the standard of liability.

I don't think it affects

r. t D AO'i m ' tb

./ o

'~

jwb 27 i.

I consolidation.

2 MR. SEAPAR:

I think we described it as one of i

3 the reasons, but what we're asking the public to do is to help us, give us information so that we can fulfill our l

4' 5

statutory cuty in deciding whether or not an ENO has 6

occurred.

I think that's the main thrust of the Federal t

i 7l Register notice.

8 MR. SHIELOS:

It's also possible that some of 9

the comments could go to the subject of the procedures that f

10 the Ccamission might use.

There's a possibility of public II involvement at a later stage in the proceedings, as cpposed 12 to nccessarily direct -- I mean, I agree with you that I I

13 ;

don' t think we 're going to get much cublic incut that we l

Id don't already have en the subject of C 4'a

'en I, because 15 that's largely a matter of attempting to analyze all of the 16 data that we have on radiation measurements.

17 ;

But on the subject of Criterien II, for example 18 there are categories that say whether 50 perrcns have I9 suffered $5000 wcrth of damage, and some other measurement --

20 as you say, soft categories, which deal with what kinds of 21 damages have been suffered by citizens in that area.

And I dcn' t think we have a very gced -- outside 23 of the fact that lawsuits have been filed -- we fen't have

~s really ae.a:eral 9eoornn, me.

_ any in:cr=ation on na: s u m m. e c t.

So 1: 13 pcssiste c

ac that we could get scme by means of either citizens groups,

c. ; n m

• 19 d) ).

L 'AJ

\\

s

Jwb ;

28 l

+

t 1

or filings by attorneys, or whatever, that would give us j

2; impression of what kind of damages have been suffered that i

3 would be within Criterion II.

l 4

MR. SEAPAR:

I think you're more likely to get I

5l productive information on Criterion II rather than I, but l

i l

6 you may get valuable stuff from I, as well.

7:

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, and with regard to this i

8 particular detemnination, requesting public cc= ment dces l

9 have the merit that, in spite of any feeling that we may I

t 10 have in hand of eith2r all or a gcod part of what is to be 11 had, there is scme benefit I think in making explicit I

i 12 invitation to say, and to help us in this matter, anybody l

i 13 :

that wants to put his two cents ' worth in en the subject is l

l 14,

new invited to do so, I think there is merit in it.

t 15 MR. SHAPAR:

I think if you went ahead and made 16 a finding withcut getting public input, I think that the 1

17 !

criticism of this agency would be considerable.

13 COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

Well, but we haven't been 19 petitioned to make the finding yet, so --

20 MR. SH.'sP AR :

Even so, I still think that the agency 21 would be criticized widely.

22 CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

Fcr not making it?

23 MR. SHAPAR:

For nct getting public input, yes.

24 C^.'m.. 2 a..^'.F 7.' ? '.7.'F -.

"a e ' ',

' aaid,

~~~

w ac.;,c.c.i a.comn. t re.

25 not making it."

i CJ l 3 % 0

.O o 1

jwb 29 l

I i

I; MR. SALTZMAN:

Well, if we don't make it, we run I

2l Into the problem again with the court up in Harrisburg, where 1

I 3

if we just don ' t do anything at all they're left in the 4:

position of not knowing what the standard of liabili /

l l'

5!

they're operating under is, i

i 6:

MR. SHAPAR:

I don't think not doing anything at i

i 1

7' all is a realistic option.

i i

I ai CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Well, I would hope that j

9 the press release that we put out would make it clear to i

10 the people what it is that we're trying to reach and why.

I 11 MR. BICRWIT:

It sounds like we haven't made it

)

12 clear to the Cc= mission.

i l

13 COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

Just to one.

14 '.

MR. SHAPAR:

I think we --

15 CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

No, I understand --

l i

l l

16 '

MR. SEAPAR:

I C ink we should make it clearer.

17 '

CHAIRMAN HENDRII:

I don't understand, Jchn.

18 Say the last part again, or scmething, your

.rsion o f it.

19 CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

If new I'm a citizen in 20 the Harrisburg area, and I know I've suffered grea 1/

21 certainly in anguish, and the NRC is putting out a press 22 '

release saying they are going to make a finding about whether 23 or not th s was an extracrdinary nuclear occurrence, r.y initial reaction is -ha this is some legal term.

So wh-1 a e 3,cers: Mecer ses. Inc.

c

~e are the'f t!*fing to reach this?

Well, there 's a stature that Od +i n a s g a. # 4, ',

~

I jwb !

30 I

I l

t 1,

says that you have to do it.

Nebody's asked us yet, but i

i 2

we ' re going to go ahead and reach this.

And we're asking i

3!

for their help.

And why do we have to make this decision?

i 4

And why do we have to determine this?

And the public --

i l

i l

5' scmebody sitting out there would just like to understand 6'

why do these guys have to reach this determination?

i7' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, the answer is very a

straightfo rward :

Because the Congress passed a law some l

9i years ago called the Price-Anderson Act that says, in the j

i 10 event of a serious nuclear accident, why the Cc= mission I

f 11 will make this determination.

i l

12 '

CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

But it said -- I thought I

13 l it was that, either within 7 days, or when petitioned.

We I

i l

e 14.

didn't do it in 7 days, so therefore it must be on a I

i 15,

petition.

l 16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Or on our own motion.

17i MR. BICKWIT:

Cr en our own motacn.

i i

18 MR. SHIELDS:

Cc=missicner, I think it's also

'9 feasible to -- I think a ~ cress release could be drafted --

l 20 it wouldn't necessarily be very short -- but I think one 21 '

could be drafted it. ncn-legal terms which would explain to 22 the citizens why the information was needed.

22 COMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

Jince I only had cne 24 cuestien, maybe I could ask it ncw.

c s.cerm a.cer en. inc.

25 And that is:

Was it intended than any pcrticn n-i n o did v's o t ?.9

~

jwb 31 i

I 1

of this verv well done paper -- and let me express my f

2; appreciation for it; I thought it was very well done -- any 3

portion of that might go cut with tne rederal Register 4

notice as instructive?

l 5,

It seemed to me, for example, that pages 1 through l

I 6:

24 expressed a sort of tentative provisional kind o#

i 7l analysis of what is required, why it's required, and hcw at 3,

least at this juncture the staff would see a conclusion, but l

9 wholly tentative and provisional and in no sense a judgmental 10 '

questien.

And it seemed in that light it might well be a 11 useful tool for those such as the citizens in Harrisburg to t

6 12 understand what kind of decision was involved here, and the l

i i

13 i process Ehat would be gone through to reach it.

And thus, i

I i

14 '

their contribution to that decision might even ce more 15 l useful.

16 MR. SHIELcs:

I think Ehat could be done, 17 '

Cc=missioner.

I think all I would do probably is possibly la,

redraft it scmewhat to take cut some of the technical or 19 legal references, but I think certainly an explanation of 20 the history and the reason for the determination could be 21 taken frca that.

22 MR. SALT 2 MAN:

As a matter of fact, much cf it, 23 if we go this way, will appear as an appendix c Chairman y'

..endrie,s cestimony en A,cnc.ay.

So it w 1 _ _,.ce mace p un _ic,

s

aw.re n.comn.

re.

• C sense.

in :na:

I a

p 3 r* ' N

'l jfOJ tLN

jwb 32 i

l I

1 CHAI'U!AN HENDRIE:

Well, if anybody reads or i

2 listens te Congressional testimony.

j 1

3, MR. SALT" MAN:

I meant to say that we had thought 4

or using it that way, also.

t l

5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Frc= the sense of making it a i

i 6

public document, and so on --

7 MR. SALT:: MAN :

That's what I mean.

l a

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

-- why if it hasn't already i

l 9

cc=e out, I intend to blcw our cover en significant sections 10 of it as attachments -- you '.new, the pertinent sections; I

i 11 not the recc==endations, but the background material and the 12 discussion of the Act, and the amendments to it, and the 13 criteria and so on.

j i

i 14 '

MR. SHAPAR:

The notice itself could certainly 15 be expanded to pick up some of this material, if you're so 16 inclined.

17' COMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

I was thinking perhaps just la as an appendix to it, rather than cc=plicate the notice.

19 Just in the interest of being concerned with those people l

20 who read this and say, "what are they going through?

why al are chev deine. this?"

Instead of havinc. to 3o down to the 4

22 local cour9.cuse and see if they can get sc=e lawyer to 23 nell them, tc have enough informatica Oc make tha: jud;=en:

24 cn their cwn.

A S-ESC 4f 31 OfDCT'Bf t. f *C, C

25 ]

MR. SALT': MAN :

Going back te Cc==issioner Ahea: ne 's

c. n n n n A

~

v e. )J's

• 9

~

jwb !

33 i

I l

1 cencern, maybe this would help.

We had the same concern 2:

right frcm the start, from the day after the accident, which 4

I l

3:

is:

What can anyone contribute with respect to Criteria I, i

i i

4 especially?

And the answer is:

Probably not much.

And I i

I 5',

guess we would be somewhat surprised if semeene came up with I

i I

6 a full set of numbers that showed that criteria I was met.

i i

1 7'

But there is the crecedential value.

You could I

a, possibly think of an accident where Criteria I was met, l

9 clearly, but Criteria II was ambiguous.

And there you 10,

would expect s;me input frcm the public.

l l

2 11 XR. BICKWIT:

Not only that, I think there could i

12 be seme valuable input from a legal, as opposed to a factual, 13 point of view cn -- even en Criterien I -- just how closely 14 is the Cc= mission meant to adhere to these criterien?

i 15 We've given you cur judgment, but it's tentative 16,

and I think this is an important issue in the case, and cne 17 :

would cc= ment that it's valuable.

13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Let me ask, locking On dcwn the i

19 line, if cne went in the way reccmmended here, we would go 20 out immediately with this nctice that says please let us 21 have your thoughts, we're =cving toward making this 22 determination, new we then need to decide upon the cc= position 23 !

of that bcdy of the principal staf f which will assemble, I i

24 guess the language is, the informaticn and make a finding sco s,e.,si a.cc,.rs, me. i 25 and repcr to the Cc==ission, establish a schedule fcr it, o e -)>,,, r tJ J.%

s. f ' k R. >

jwb l 34 l-l ili and would you see publication of that finding -- of that i

i I

2 -

staff report crior to more Ccmmission discussions?

i i

3' MR. SICKWIT:

That was our feeling.

1 4:

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Or perhaps the staff group l

5, would present it to us at a public briefing, and the paper 6

would be publicly available?

I 7

MR. SHAPAR:

Under all optiens.

i I

8 I

8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Do we see -- there was some I

i i

1 9

mention of a further round of public comment.

Would i

i i

somebody outline for =e where -- what the purpose of that l

10 II is?

l l

I2 MR. SEAPAR:

I think that was mentioned as an I

I3 '

option in the paper, that when the recommendations were t

t I4 j available, comments might be solicited en that.

l 15 MR. SHIELDS:

Yes, the possibilities would be, i

16,

as you said, the staff could prepare a group report whicn i

I,'.

would be on the erder of a draft environmental impact I8 statement, which could be circulated at that point prior to l9 being submitted to the Commission.

Or it could be submitted 20

• to the Ccemission, and the Cctmission then receive critical II cc=ments or otherwise at that point.

I mean, where you work that in is a cuestion I think we'll have :0 decide in the next few weeks.

• 4 MR. SEAPAR:

I tink it will decend, ace-Feceret Aeocrian,1 c.

~

to scme Se l

,1 extent, en*<hether Cr nct the decisien is a Close one er net,

) #I

$ b

[b j.U v' ' \\ \\

• i

'I l

I jwb 35 I*

1 l

4 l

1 after consideration.

l i

2, MR. SHIELDS:

We were only noting, I think, that I

,t 3i it would be important to have at least one other opportunity l

4l for public input at a stage where the Cc= mission was actually 5,

preparing, or was getting close to making a decision on the 6

issue.

i 7

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Okay.

Well, I think that is l

l 3

important.

That is, you would foresee one more opportunity l

9 for cccment en the record before a determination.

l t

i 10 MR. BICKWIT:

Yes.

l 11 MR. SHIELDS:

Richt.

12' CRAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I think that's -- ir whatever 1

I 13 form that came, whether it was on the staff report, or staff i

i 14 report plus anything else people wanted to say, which I would i

15 think would probably be the case, that it 's an important i

i i

e lement, then.

16 17 Gkay, well I guess I'm convinced and ready to la vote for the notice.

I wonder if other Ccmmissioners --

19 CCMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

I have one sincr 20 editorial modification I would suggest to the notice itself, 21 which is on the frcnt page.

It says, in the very middle 22 of the paragraph:

"First, it is clear that the events 22 which have taken place at Three Mile Island Unit 2 24

.cnstitute the most sericus nuclear accident to date."

I ACS 89defst 9 9CC r'$ rt, I t'C.

25 think ycu cught to say either 'a sericus nuclear accidenc' cr, 9 3<r=\\,

v) a.aM a ' % i

l jwb 36 l

i l

1; if it's going to say "the most serious nuclear accident to 2l date" it ought to say "in the regulating sector. "

l 3

MR. SHAPAR:

In the United States?

i I

4' COMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

Yes.

i 5

I guess the easiest way to deal with it is to say 6:

"a serious nuclear accident," striking the other words.

j I

7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

That sounds fine to me.

l i

a, COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:

I guess I would go with l

l i

9 the second one.

10 COMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

It doesn't make any l-11 '

difference.

Either one.

It deern't make any difference.

12 The other form of it would be "the most serious nuclear 13 accident in the regulating sector in the United S tates. "

l r

l4 '

CCMMISSICNER GILINSKY:

Secause we have certainly t

i 15 '

labeled it as "the = cst sericus" in testimony, and in varicus 1

16 discussions en it.

I don't think this notice cught to enange 17' that description, even if nothing is meant thereby.

la CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Ycu're right.

We have said 19 that -- at least I have -- a number of times.

20 COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:

Yes.

t 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

In that case, I would j ust 22 add after "to date," I would add the words "at a licensed 23 U.S.

facility."

-v n

4 n n y u.

-; a - e..,

R G - A..S K.7.

uccc.

n.

.4 4

w..

Acs 3,cers aeeer m. ;ne.

25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Thus avoiding world-wide

?' O

.s> x u u t

jwb 37 I

Ij knowledge and so on.

2.

CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

Could I ask one other il I

,l 4

3 question?

I'm not sure whicn or the joint authors wrote 1

I 4l this, but I would like to ask whether they still agree with I

5 it.

This is on page 28 in the document.

The second sentence l

1 6

of the second paragraph.

It says:

i i

i 7!

"Beyond the obvious administrative convenience 8

of consolidating many damage suits into a single Federal l

9, district court, there is little to point to regarding t

I 10 concrete legal effects."

And that's of declaring an ENO i

li in this case.

And I just wanted to make sure,

_n light i

12 of scme of the previous conversation, is that still --

t l

13 :

MR. SHIELDS:

I wrote it.

i t

14 1 MR. BICKWIT:

I think we all have reservations.

i 1

15 '

MR. SEAPAR:

I think that should be changed.

1 t

16 :

(Laughter.)

17 MR. SHIELDS:

I think what I was intending to la '

get at --

19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I get caught that way, Bill, 20 frequently, too.

You knew, you say something that seems 21 obvious, and you suddenly disecver support has disappeared 22 at scme later time.

23 (Laughter.)

24 C9. AIRMAN HINORIZ:

And you say, "Why didn't pecple s..,cerei a eoe,.rs. inc.

c 25 tell T.e they were stepping back off :he end Of the plank

c. i., n S O A.O a ' t.n.r

jwb l 38 i*

i I

i 1l here?

2.

MR. SHIELDS:

I'm still out in front.

3' MR. SEAPAR:

And beycnd that, it's not fair for 4;

the Comuissioners to read these papers this closely.

I 5

(Laughter.)

i l

6l MR. SALTZMAN:

I think we're --

l I

7!

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It's clear back en page 28, I

l a

right?

9' MR. BICKWIT:

I think we correct that observation 10 later in the paper.

I 11 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

But it just seems --

12 COMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

Yes, as a matter of fact I

i i

13 '

.vou do.

l 14 :

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

So bv correcting that I

i 15,

cbservation, I gather, vou disagree with it.

16 MR. SICKNIT:

But it's not wrong; it's just 17 ;

the paper's just inconsistent, internally inconsistent.

18 (Laughter.)

19,

CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

But you disagree with 1

20 t,

that there.

21 MR-BICKWIT:

Yes, withcut qual _ficaricns.

I 22 mean, it's quite pcssible that it will have little in the 23 way of concrete legal effects.

We don't knew that.

24 CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE:

That was cne of the things Acs Feceral 9eocr ers,19c.

25 that led me to hope that a presu release would be clear.

o,.,.-,. p a,s.O s ? s R.*

I 39 jwb ll CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I think this may go a little --

l l

l 2!

this goes beyond, perhaps goes a little beyond the -- as a 3

policy consideration discussion, I think it probably gces a i

l 4,

little beyond the press release sort of trying to set forward 5

the background and sort of the elements that are in the j

i l

6' law.

i, 7;

COMMISSICNER AhEARNE:

However, it seems to be S

important to explain what the reasons are.

l 9

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Cther cc=ments?

10 (No response.)

l i

Il CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Could I please ask you then i

i 12,

if you would be able to vote, or at least a sufficient number t

l 13 !

of you feel able to vote so we could have a Commission action l

I4 on it?

i 15 CCMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

Aye.

l I0,

CEAIRMAN HENDRII:

I'm getting a vote.

Let me I7 propose what you're voting cn.

i I3 (Zaughter.)

II CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

With the --

20 CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I was afraid if I didn't 2I vcte, the afternoon would wither away before we go: to it.

CHAIRMAN HENDRII:

With the word change that we have just discussed a minute ago, "at a licensed U.S.

4 r a c 1 1 1 : v., ' I would O.rc:cse tc tne Cc=m. ssion tn.at we c.urtish e

be

-c-;

that order.

n a o n :.s u.i.d u s 2..

i

jwb 40 i

i i.

I, 1l CCMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

And with an appropriate i

l 2

explanatory piece drawing from pages 1 through 24 of this t

3' paper.

l 4,

CHAIPF.AN HENDRIE:

Yes, to explala wnat it is we I

5 are doing.

6 COMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

Aye.

7 CHAIRMAN HENDRII:

I'll vote for it.

I g

COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:

I just want to check l

9 page 24 here.

i 10 CCMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

Does that include --

i 11 CCMMISSICNER GILINSKY:

Yes, okay.

Yes, yes, 12 I understand.

i i

13 COMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

-- 1 through 24?

l l

l 14 ;

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes, it tries to cut off before l

l 15 you get to, you know, the scrt of -- there were seme

.i 16,

tentative conclusiens.

17,

CCMMISSICNER GILINSKY:

I'll vote for that.

I i

la would also like to be sure that the citicens of the area 19 will get considerable notice of all this, beyond just 20 having it appear in the Federal Register.

21 C'4 AIRMAN HENDR~E:

Yes, I think it would be 22 useful.

23 MR. SALTIMA'i:

We could ask Public Information 24 to prepare a press release.

scea.cersi aeocr m. inc.

25 CRAI?lGli HZ:iDRII:

Prepare a press release and c n n v n, ns,e. O s.* r ) '.

w 41 l

i i

i !

zee what they can reasonably do to make the press release 2

with the -- there would be a somewhat extended discussion.

l I

3 That is, as press releases go, it will have an attachment.

4, CCMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

And as mentioned earlier, that an appropriate notification in the a al newspapers I

l i

6 was appropriate.

{

7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

i 8

CCMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

And I would certainly vote l

9 for that.

i i

10 '

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It might be necessary to --

11 by the way, do we have any prcblem with, you kncw, buying i

12 newspaper space to publish a thing like this, just to make l

4 1

13 sure it gets in?

I don't think we do.

l 14,

MR. SALTIMAN:

We buy newscaper and macarine 1

i 15 space to put in notices f er other purposes --

i 16 CHAIMAN HENDRIE:

Oh, all the time?

17' MR. SALTIMAN:

Yes, antitrust review --

la '

CHAIPRAN HENDRIE:

Yes, because if you send this 19 '

thing to the newspaper and the editor will take out a 20 couple of paragraphs and stick it in the paper, and the 21 rest of it will go by the boards.

If you really want :0 ge 22 it all available to the public, why ycu really have to f 23 scmething like buy space, which ! leave to the Public

]I Information office to determine, but in seems to me a way e

w 5,c e,si A eoor m, t r c. l of trying to make sure tha: the information is at leas n.,

c. v o Oj UJt bL)

jwb [

42 i

1l availa.11e, if people want.

j t

i 2l I've got three, John.

Do you want to vote for, I

3i against, or abstain?

t 4

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Against.

I I

5 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Vote against.

I will declare i

I I

6 the motien carried on a 3-1 vote.

7 Thank you very much.

I i

8 (Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m.,

the meeting was 9

adjourned.)

I t

end JW3 10 '

11 '

l 12 13 l

\\

l i

14 :

i i

i 15,

i 16 17 l l

18 19 i

20 21 '

22 23 2d sce ;

.r., a.cor.n. inc.

25 dr.3 : uu 4

..O

.re